[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 68 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3005-S3013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Big Oil Profits
On the issue of emergencies, I would like to address a second topic.
Over the last decade, what we have seen is a pattern of rising
profits on the part of oil companies. The emergency for consumers is
one of rising prices now.
I believe we have an obligation to ensure fundamental fairness in our
Tax Code by eliminating, in effect, the tax subsidies and loopholes and
giveaways that are such an offense to the justice and fairness of our
system.
In spite of the big five oil companies earning more than $1 trillion
in profits, they have enjoyed tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer
subsidies, which are unconscionable, they are unacceptable, and they
must end.
That is the purpose of the legislation we are going to consider later
today. I strongly support it in the interest of consumers, but, more
importantly, in the interest of taxpayers and to repair a part of our
deficit.
While families and businesses in Connecticut are paying more than
$4.25 a gallon, putting a strain on all of our family budgets, the big
oil companies continue to rake in record profits and continue to enjoy
subsidies that put a dent in our fiscal situation. The companies made
over $30 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year alone,
representing a 50-percent increase in profits from last year.
The long and short of this debate is, big oil doesn't need these
subsidies. They don't need the help of American taxpayers to do
exploration or any of the other activities that are involved in
producing the profits they enjoy so abundantly.
Ending these subsidies, despite claims to the contrary, will not
increase prices at the pump and, instead, will provide for basic
fairness so Americans no longer have to pay for these giveaways and tax
breaks to some of the most profitable companies in the world.
People in my home State of Connecticut and across the country remain
concerned about reducing our debt and deficit. We cannot do it if we
have this plethora of subsidies and giveaways and breaks going to
special interests and corporations, such as Big Oil, which simply don't
need it.
Ordinary Americans, in Connecticut and elsewhere, are struggling to
stay in their homes, find jobs, keep their families together and they
regard these subsidies as offensive to fundamental fairness and they
are right.
I urge this body to act later today in eliminating those loopholes
and subsidies.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding that I have 10
minutes as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent to use that
time now.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we are going to be voting on a bill this
afternoon to dramatically increase taxes on America's oil and gas
companies. I only suggest that it is not going to pass. I can recall
when the Senator from Vermont, just a few months ago, had a bill that
would have done essentially the same thing--pass tax increases on these
oil and gas companies. I remember coming to the floor at that time and
giving my argument against it. It ended up that we voted on it, and we
had 61 votes against it, so it worked out that about 30 were for it.
Afterward--and I have to say this about Senator Sanders--Senator
Sanders said that was probably one of the healthiest and honest debates
he had seen during the years he has been in the Senate. I agreed with
that. The idea that we can somehow tax these people and accomplish
something--let me just say that the Congressional Research Service--and
when I talk about
[[Page S3007]]
CRS, it is nonpartisan and nobody argues with them.
We in the United States have the largest recoverable reserves of oil,
gas, and coal of any country in the world. There is no reason we cannot
be completely independent of the Middle East. All we have to do is
explore our own resources--oil, gas, and coal.
This same Congressional Research Service has looked at the issues and
told us that raising taxes on energy companies will do two things--
decrease supply and increase our dependence on foreign countries. In
other words, this vote we are going to have this afternoon, if it were
successful, would decrease the supply and increase our dependence upon
the Middle East.
In addition to the CRS, let's go back to the 1970s, under the Carter
administration, when we had the windfall profits tax. The same exact
thing happened. It decreased supply and increased our dependence on
foreign competition. The interesting point is--and my wife is not the
only one complaining about the price of gas, but she is certainly loud
and clear in that position--nobody is saying that by increasing the
taxes, with the vote we are going to have on oil and gas companies this
afternoon, somehow that will have the effect of lowering prices at the
pump. It will raise them. In fact, I think several Members have come
down--Senator Menendez, the sponsor of the legislation, said:
Nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing
gas prices.
If it is not about reducing gas prices, then what is it for? The
answer to that is, they say--as the Senator from Connecticut just
stated, this is going to be something that is going to be reducing the
deficit. Our problem is, President Obama and his Democratic support in
the House and Senate--in the first 2 years, they had a large majority
in the House and the Senate--in his 3 years of the budget, they have
increased the deficit and budget by over $5 trillion. I can remember
coming to the floor of the Senate during the Clinton years, in 1995,
saying this is outrageous. This was a $1.5 trillion budget. That was to
run the entire United States. This last budget by President Obama was
an increase of $1.65 trillion--just the deficit. Let's do our math.
That is 365 days a year, and it works out to be $4 billion a day.
We have a President and his majority giving us a $4 billion-a-day
deficit, and this says it is going to cut the deficit by $2 billion. So
we can tax all these oil companies to come up with enough money to
reduce the deficit just by $2 billion. That is worth one-half day's
deficit of this administration. I know the majority of people
understand that, and they will not be duped into doing that.
By the way, I have to say that fortifying me was this morning's
editorial in USA Today. They talk about how ludicrous this idea is that
we can increase taxes on oil and gas companies. They say it is an
example of the sort of political gamesmanship that substitutes for
serious deficit reduction. It says:
But the initiative is also government at its arbitrary
worst, further complicating the tax code by singling out five
companies--ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and
BP--for special taxes not paid by smaller energy concerns. .
. .
So we have a little class warfare going along with it. Only
yesterday, the same USA Today was criticizing me in their editorial
policy because I don't want to pass a cap and trade--a tax increase.
The same paper that yesterday was critical of a position I have taken
is now strongly in favor of the position I have taken in avoiding any
additional taxes on the energy companies or anybody else.
The last thing I will say--because I will stay within my timeframe is
that people say if we want to do something about the deficit--and that
is what they are saying they are doing--this is one-half day's deficit
if they pass these tax increases, which they will not--they say there
are only two ways to handle the debt; one is to decrease spending and
another is to increase taxes.
I suggest there is a third way. That way is to go after all these
regulations we currently are operating under as a result of this
administration. We are talking about cap-and-trade regulations,
greenhouse gas regulations, boiler MACT regulations, ozone, which could
create over 600 nonattainment areas, and the cost of that is $90
billion. If we add all the costs of all these different regulations--
greenhouse gas, $300 billion to $400 billion; ozone, $60 billion to $90
billion; boiler MACT, $1 billion; and utility MACT, $184 billion--when
we add that, it is $1 trillion. If we take the $1 trillion, that is 7
percent of the $14 trillion that we would say the GDP would amount to.
CRS says that for every 1 percent increase in economic activity or
increase in GDP, that translates into revenue of $50 billion. This is 7
percent, so that would be $350 billion. If we want to go after the
deficit, deficit spending, and the debt, go after the regulations too.
But to think we can tax oil and gas companies and somehow come up with
$2 billion to reduce the deficit, that is just one day's deficit under
the Obama administration. This body is not going to pass that.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from
Oklahoma for making an obvious and compelling point, which is that the
problem is high gasoline prices. Why is the Democratic solution to
raise them more? That is all their tax would do.
The Republican plan for dealing with high gasoline prices is to find
more American energy and use less. The Democratic plan seems to be to
find less and tax more. That is not going to solve the problem. We need
to use less. We agree with that.
There are a variety of ways to do that: through conservation and
electric cars, which I favor, and finding research for crops--for
alternative fuels from crops we don't need. More important, we need to
find more American energy and natural gas offshore, on Federal lands,
and in Alaska. That will not completely solve the problem of high
gasoline prices, but it will help. If less oil from Libya is a factor
in raising gasoline prices, more oil from the United States would be a
factor in lowering gasoline prices. We are, after all, the third
largest producer of oil in the world.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for an excellent point. The
Democratic proposal is to find less American energy and to tax more.
nlrb and boeing
Madam President, I wish to speak about the events of the last few
weeks that have followed the decision by the National Labor Relations
Board general counsel to file a complaint against the Boeing Company,
alleging basically that the fact that they are expanding their
production of airliners at a new plant in South Carolina, which is a
right-to-work State, is prima facie evidence of an unfair labor
practice. This would, in effect, establish for the first time since the
Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947, the idea that it is against the
Federal law for a company that is producing in a union State to move or
expand its facilities in a right-to-work State, of which there are 22.
We are talking about the first new plant in 40 years to build large
airplanes. The Boeing Company builds most of its planes in Washington
State. It is the Nation's largest exporter. It has 170,000 employees
around the world, and 155,000 of them are employees in the United
States. These are good jobs.
But at the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee hearing on
Thursday, the general counsel of Boeing said the company expects to
lose their appeal of the general counsel's complaint when it is heard
before an administrative judge on June 14. Then they expect to lose the
appeal of that decision to the National Labor Relations Board because
the company assumes that the general counsel is following the same view
of the law that the President's appointees on the NLRB are following.
However, then Boeing expects to win the case when it goes to the U.S.
court of appeals or, perhaps, even to the Supreme Court. But it will
take 2 to 5 years for all that to happen.
I ask, what happens to American jobs in the meantime? Well, first,
this complaint against Boeing will slow the number of good, new jobs
into my State of Tennessee, which has a 9-percent unemployment rate,
and it has had that for 2 years. I have watched our State grow over the
last 30 years,
[[Page S3008]]
from the time I was Governor. We had a hearing last week that Senator
Harkin called, chairman of the Health, Education, and Labor Committee,
about middle-class incomes. What I said at the hearing was that the
effect on middle-class income in Tennessee--the State I know the most
about--is that 30 years ago we were the third poorest State. Because
the auto industry chose to come to our State, partly because it was a
central location in the population market and because it is a right-to-
work State with a different sort of labor environment in it than other
States--because the auto industry came to Tennessee, middle incomes
have gone up.
One-third of the manufacturing jobs in our State are now auto jobs.
Nissan is there. General Motors is there. Volkswagen just came there.
Hundreds of suppliers have come to Tennessee. They like the
environment. They like the road system. They like the central location.
But they like the right-to-work law.
Suddenly any supplier or any manufacturer who wants to create a new
facility in 1 of the 22 right-to-work States, including Tennessee,
according to the National Labor Relations Board counsel, is going to
have to think twice because that company, which could be a small
company, may not want to spend 2 to 5 years before the National Labor
Relations Board. I think this counsel knew exactly what he was doing.
He was trying to freeze job expansion in the United States at a time
when we need job expansion the most.
There is an unintended consequence to this. If jobs cannot move into
Tennessee and other right-to-work States because of the Boeing
complaint, they may not move into the States that do not have a right-
to-work law. Why is that? According to Jim McNerney, the CEO of Boeing:
An unintended consequence of the Boeing complaint [is that]
forward thinking CEOs also would be reluctant to place new
plants in unionized States--lest they be forever restricted
from placing future plants across the country.
If you want to put a plant in, say, Michigan, which is a unionized
State, you might not do that because under the general counsel of the
NLRB's rule of law, you then could not move to South Carolina or
Tennessee or Arkansas or any other State with a right-to-work law.
If you cannot go to a unionized State, and if you cannot go to a
right-to-work State, then where do you go if you want to make things?
You go overseas. This action by the NLRB general counsel is the single
most important action I can imagine that would make it more difficult
to create good, new jobs in Tennessee and would make it more likely
that manufacturing jobs would go overseas.
The President of the United States asked the chief executive of
Boeing, Mr. McNerney, to chair the President's Export Council. I
presume what President Obama would like for Mr. McNerney to do is to
export airplanes, not export jobs. But what the NLRB ruling will do is
cause the export of jobs, not the export of airplanes.
Boeing has 170,000 employees. About 90 percent of them are in the
United States. But Boeing sells its airplanes everywhere in the world,
and Boeing can make its airplanes anywhere in the world. There may be
other countries that come to Boeing and to other manufacturers in the
United States and say: We want you to make in our country what you sell
in our country. After this NLRB decision, they may be more tempted to
do that.
Fortunately, there are other trends suggesting that manufacturing
companies around the world may be more likely in the next few years to
make here what they sell in the United States. That is what President
Carter said to the Governors 30 years ago: Governors, go to Japan.
Persuade them to make in the United States what they sell in the United
States. Off I went to Tokyo. I asked Nissan to come to Tennessee, as
most States. They chose us because of our central location and right-
to-work law, just as other auto jobs have done that. Nissan tells me
soon 85 percent of what they sell in the United States will be made in
the United States. Thirty years ago they were making almost none of
what they sold in the United States in the United States. They were
making it in Japan. We were worried then Japan was going to take us
over. That has changed. Now they are making here what they sell here.
The Economist article this week says there may be a manufacturing
renaissance coming. What is happening in China where they are making
things today is a lot like what happened in Japan 30 years ago. As
China becomes more prosperous, wages will go up. As Japan became more
prosperous 30 years ago, wages went up. In the auto industry, where
wages only constitute maybe 20 percent of the total cost of what a
supplier may have to spend to make a part for a Volkswagen assembly
plant, wages get to be less important.
People look at other things. Manufacturing would look at a variety of
actions by a government before the manufacturer decides where to make
the airplane or where to make the car or where to make the appliance
that might be sold in a country.
They are going to have plenty of incentives naturally to make a lot
of products in the United States because the country that produces 25
percent of all the money in the world, which we do, is going to be
buying a lot of stuff unless we do our best to throw a big wet blanket
on making here what we sell here, which is precisely what this
administration has been doing.
We have a high corporate income tax. Give the President the credit.
He said maybe we want to change that. We should because it makes it
better for manufacturers to make products overseas.
The health care law takes profits away from companies that they might
use to create new jobs here. I have had heads of restaurant companies
tell me they are not going to invest anymore in the United States
because the health care taxes take away all of their profits.
Regulations make credit harder to get, and regulations drive up energy
and gasoline prices. All of this makes it harder to make here what
manufacturers sell here.
Now we have a regulation from the National Labor Relations Board that
may have the effect of law for 2 to 5 years that says it is prima facie
evidence of an unfair labor practice if a company that is producing in
a union State expands or moves to a right-to-work State. This is an
assault on every middle-income Tennessean and on millions of middle-
income Americans who have manufacturing jobs--certainly, everyone in
the 22 right-to-work States. But as the Boeing chief executive said, it
could be just as much of a disincentive to a State such as Michigan or
Illinois or some other State that does not have a right-to-work law
because why would you put a plant in Michigan if later you would not be
allowed to put it in Tennessee?
If General Motors has plants in both right-to-work and non-right-to-
work States, we are going to make it more difficult for General Motors
to expand in America. Where are they going to expand? They can expand
overseas. They can be making there what they sell there instead of
making it here.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk about
outsourcing jobs. This is the mother of all outsourcing jobs plan--the
idea that it is prima facie evidence for a company that expands in a
right-to-work State, that is an unfair labor practice.
For the next 2 to 5 years, we have the unhealthy situation for jobs
that any manufacturer who wants to expand will have to think twice
about expanding in a right-to-work State and then think at least once
about coming in the first place to a State that does not have a right-
to-work law. The only other option I can see for those jobs is to make
them overseas. That will not only slow job growth in the United States
where we desperately need it, but it will be speeding up the sending of
American jobs overseas.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record two articles--one by George Will this week on the South Carolina
Boeing plant and the action of the National Labor Relations Board
complaint, and the second, an article from the Economist magazine.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S3009]]
[From The Economist, May 12, 2011]
Multinational Manufacturers--Moving Back to America
the dwindling allure of building factories offshore
``When clients are considering opening another
manufacturing plant in China, I've started to urge them to
consider alternative locations,'' says Hal Sirkin of the
Boston Consulting Group (BCG). ``Have they thought about
Vietnam, say? Or maybe [they could] even try Made in USA?''
When clients are American firms looking to build factories to
serve American customers, Mr. Sirkin is increasingly likely
to suggest they stay at home, not for patriotic reasons but
because the economics of globalisation are changing fast.
Labour arbitrage--taking advantage of lower wages abroad,
especially in poor countries--has never been the only force
pushing multinationals to locate offshore, but it has
certainly played a big part. Now, however, as emerging
economies boom, wages there are rising. Pay for factory
workers in China, for example, soared by 69% between 2005 and
2010. So the gains from labour arbitrage are starting to
shrink, in some cases to the point of irrelevance, according
to a new study by BCG.
``Sometime around 2015, manufacturers will be indifferent
between locating in America or China for production for
consumption in America,'' says Mr. Sirkin. That calculation
assumes that wage growth will continue at around 17% a year
in China but remain relatively slow in America, and that
productivity growth will continue on current trends in both
countries. It also assumes a modest appreciation of the yuan
against the dollar.
The year 2015 is not far off. Factories take time to build,
and can carry on cranking out widgets for years. So firms
planning today for production tomorrow are increasingly
looking close to home. BCG lists several examples of
companies that have already brought plants and jobs back to
America. Caterpillar, a maker of vehicles that dig, pull or
plough, is shifting some of its excavator production from
abroad to Texas. Sauder, an American furniture-maker, is
moving production back home from low-wage countries. NCR has
returned production of cash machines to Georgia (the American
state, not the country that is occasionally invaded by
Russia). Wham-O last year restored half of its Frisbee and
Hula Hoop production to America from China and Mexico.
BCG predicts a ``manufacturing renaissance'' in America.
There are reasons to be sceptical. The surge of manufacturing
output in the past year or so has largely been about
recovering ground lost during the downturn. Moreover, some of
the new factories in America have been wooed by subsidies
that may soon dry up. But still, the new economics of labour
arbitrage will make a difference.
Rather than a stampede of plants coming home, ``higher
wages in China may cause some firms that were going to scale
back in the U.S. to keep their options open by continuing to
operate a plant in America,'' says Gary Pisano of Harvard
Business School. The announcement on May 10th by General
Motors (GM) that it will invest $2 billion to add up to 4,000
jobs at 17 American plants supports Mr. Pisano's point. GM is
probably not creating many new jobs but keeping in America
jobs that it might otherwise have exported.
Even if wages in China explode, some multinationals will
find it hard to bring many jobs back to America, argues Mr.
Pisano. In some areas, such as consumer electronics, America
no longer has the necessary supplier base or infrastructure.
Firms did not realise when they shifted operations to low-
wage countries that some moves ``would be almost
irreversible'', says Mr Pisano.
Many multinationals will continue to build most of their
new factories in emerging markets, not to export stuff back
home but because that is where demand is growing fastest. And
companies from other rich countries will probably continue to
enjoy the opportunity for labour arbitrage for longer than
American ones, says Mr. Sirkin. Their labour costs are higher
than America's and will remain so unless the euro falls
sharply against the yuan.
there's no place like home
The opportunity for labour arbitrage is disappearing
fastest in basic manufacturing and in China. Other sectors
and countries are less affected. As Pankaj Ghemawat, the
author of ``World 3.0'', points out, despite rapidly rising
wages in India, its software and back-office offshoring
industry is likely to retain its cost advantage for the
foreseeable future, not least because of its rapid
productivity growth.
Nonetheless, a growing number of multinationals, especially
from rich countries, are starting to see the benefits of
keeping more of their operations close to home. For many
products, labour is a small and diminishing fraction of total
costs. And long, complex supply chains turn out to be riskier
than many firms realised. When oil prices soar, transport
grows dearer. When an epidemic such as SARS hits Asia or when
an earthquake hits Japan, supply chains are disrupted.
``There has been a definite shortening of supply chains,
especially of those that had 30 or 40 processing steps,''
says Mr. Ghemawat.
Firms are also trying to reduce their inventory costs.
Importing from China to the United States may require a
company to hold 100 days of inventory. That burden can be
handily reduced if the goods are made nearer home (though
that could be in Mexico rather than in America).
Companies are thinking in more sophisticated ways about
their supply chains. Bosses no longer assume that they should
always make things in the country with the lowest wages.
Increasingly, it makes sense to make things in a variety of
places, including America.
____
[May 13, 2011]
The Dreamliner Nightmare
(By George Will)
North Charleston, S.C.--This summer, the huge Boeing
assembly plant here will begin producing 787 Dreamliners--up
to three a month, priced at $185 million apiece. It will,
unless the National Labor Relations Board, controlled by
Democrats and encouraged by Barack Obama's reverberating
silence, gets its way.
Last month--17 months after Boeing announced plans to build
here and with the $2 billion plant nearing completion--the
NLRB, collaborating with the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), charged that Boeing's
decision violated the rights of its unionized workers in
Washington state, where some Dreamliners are assembled and
still will be even after the plant here is operational. The
NLRB has read a 76-year-old statute (the 1935 Wagner Act)
perversely, disregarded almost half a century of NLRB and
Supreme Court rulings, and patently misrepresented statements
by Boeing officials.
South Carolina is one of 22--so far--right-to-work states,
where workers cannot be compelled to join a union. When in
September 2009, Boeing's South Carolina workers--fuselage
sections of 787s already are built here--voted to end their
representation by IAM, the union did not accuse Boeing of
pre-vote misbehavior. Now, however, the NLRB seeks to
establish the principle that moving businesses to such states
from non-right-to-work states constitutes prima facie
evidence of ``unfair labor practices,'' including
intimidation and coercion of labor. This principle would be a
powerful incentive for new companies to locate only in right-
to-work states.
The NLRB complaint fictitiously says Boeing has decided to
``remove'' or ``transfer'' work from Washington. Actually,
Boeing has so far added more than 2,000 workers in
Washington, where planned production--seven 787s a month,
full capacity for that facility--will not be reduced.
Besides, how can locating a new plant here violate the rights
of IAM members whose collective bargaining agreement with
Boeing gives the company the right to locate new production
facilities where it deems best?
The NLRB says that Boeing has come here ``because'' IAM
strikes have disrupted production and ``to discourage''
future strikes.
Since 1995, IAM has stopped Boeing's production in three of
five labor negotiations, including a 58-day walkout in 2008
that cost the company $1.8 billion and a diminished
reputation with customers.
The NLRB uses meretricious editing of Boeing officials'
remarks to falsely suggest that anti-union animus motivated
the company to locate some production in a right-to-work
state. Anyway, it is settled law that companies can consider
past strikes when making business decisions to diminish the
risk of future disruptions.
The economy is mired in a sluggish recovery. But the
destructive--and self-destructive--Obama administration is
trying to debilitate the world's largest aerospace
corporation and the nation's leading exporter, which has
155,000 U.S. employees and whose 738 million shares are held
by individual and institutional investors, mutual funds and
retirement accounts. Why? Organized labor, primarily and
increasingly confined to government workers, cannot convince
private-sector workers that it adds more value to their lives
than it subtracts with dues and work rules that damage
productivity. Hence unions' reliance on government coercion
where persuasion has failed.
The NLRB's complaint is not a conscientious administration
of the law; it is intimidation of business leaders who
contemplate locating operations in right-to-work states.
Labor loathes Section 14(b) of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act,
which allows states to pass right-to-work laws that forbid
compulsory unionization. But 11 Democratic senators represent
10 of the right-to-work states: Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Bill
Nelson (Florida), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mary Landrieu
(Louisiana), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Harry Reid (Nevada), Kay
Hagan (North Carolina), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Tim
Johnson (South Dakota), and Jim Webb and Mark Warner
(Virginia). Do they support the Obama administration's
attempt to cripple their states' economic attractiveness?
The NLRB's attack on Boeing illustrates the Obama
administration's penchant for lawlessness displayed when,
disregarding bankruptcy law, it traduced the rights of
Chrysler's secured creditors. Now the NLRB is suing Arizona
and South Dakota because they recently, and by large
majorities, passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the
right to secret ballots in unionization elections--ballots
that complicate coercion by union organizers.
Just as uncompetitive companies try to become wards of the
government (beneficiaries
[[Page S3010]]
of subsidies, tariffs, import quotas), unions unable to
compete for workers' allegiance solicit government compulsion
to fill their ranks. The NLRB's reckless attempt to break a
great corporation, and by extension all businesses, to
government's saddle--never mind the collateral damage to the
economy--is emblematic of the Obama administration's
willingness to sacrifice the economy on the altar of
politics.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2011]
Boeing Is Pro-Growth, Not Anti-Union
(By Jim McNerney)
Deep into the recent recession, Boeing decided to invest
more than $1 billion in a new factory in South Carolina.
Surging global demand for our innovative, new 787 Dreamliner
exceeded what we could build on one production line and we
needed to open another.
This was good news for Boeing and for the economy. The new
jetliner assembly plant would be the first one built in the
U.S. in 40 years. It would create new American jobs at a time
when most employers are hunkered down. It would expand the
domestic footprint of the nation's leading exporter and make
it more competitive against emerging plane makers from China,
Russia and elsewhere. And it would bring hope to a state
burdened by double-digit unemployment--with the construction
phase alone estimated to create more than 9,000 total jobs.
Eighteen months later, a North Charleston swamp has been
transformed into a state-of-the-art, green-energy powered,
1.2 million square-foot airplane assembly plant. One thousand
new workers are hired and being trained to start building
planes in July.
It is an American industrial success story by every
measure. With 9% unemployment nationwide, we need more of
them--and soon.
Yet the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) believes it
was a mistake and that our actions were unlawful. It claims
we improperly transferred existing work, and that our
decision reflected ``animus'' and constituted ``retaliation''
against union-represented employees in Washington state. Its
remedy: Reverse course, Boeing, and build the assembly line
where we tell you to build it.
The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority.
Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist
principles that have sustained America's competitiveness
since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years
ago. We've made a rational, legal business decision about the
allocation of our capital and the placement of new work
within the U.S. We're confident the federal courts will
reject the claim, but only after a significant and
unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
More worrisome, though, are the potential implications of
such brazen regulatory activism on the U.S. manufacturing
base and long-term job creation. The NLRB's overreach could
accelerate the overseas flight of good, middle-class American
jobs.
Contrary to the NLRB's claim, our decision to expand in
South Carolina resulted from an objective analysis of the
same factors we use in every site selection. We considered
locations in several states but narrowed the choice to either
North Charleston (where sections of the 787 are built
already) or Everett, Wash., which won the initial 787
assembly line in 2003.
Our union contracts expressly permit us to locate new work
at our discretion. However, we viewed Everett as an
attractive option and engaged voluntarily in talks with union
officials to see if we could make the business case work.
Among the considerations we sought were a long-term ``no-
strike clause'' that would ensure production stability for
our customers, and a wage and benefit growth trajectory that
would help in our cost battle against Airbus and other state-
sponsored competitors.
Despite months of effort, no agreement was reached. Union
leaders couldn't meet expectations on our key issues, and we
couldn't accept their demands that we remain neutral in all
union-organizing campaigns and essentially guarantee to build
every future Boeing airplane in the Puget Sound area. In
October 2009, we made the Charleston selection.
Important to our case is the basic fact that no existing
work is being transferred to South Carolina, and not a single
union member in Washington has been adversely affected by
this decision. In fact, we've since added more than 2,000
union jobs there, and the hiring continues. The 787
production line in Everett has a planned capacity of seven
airplanes per month. The line in Charleston will build three
additional airplanes to reach our 10-per-month capacity plan.
Production of the new U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker
will sustain and grow union jobs in Everett, too.
Before and after the selection, we spoke openly to
employees and investors about our competitive realities and
the business considerations of the decision. The NLRB now is
selectively quoting and mischaracterizing those comments in
an attempt to bolster its case. This is a distressing signal
from one arm of the government when others are pushing for
greater openness and transparency in corporate decision
making.
It is no secret that over the years Boeing and union
leaders have struggled to find the right way to work
together. I don't blame that all on the union, or all on the
company. Both sides are working to improve that dynamic,
which is also a top concern for customers. Virgin Atlantic
founder Richard Branson put it this way following the 2008
machinists' strike that shut down assembly for eight weeks:
``If union leaders and management can't get their act
together to avoid strikes, we're not going to come back here
again. We're already thinking, `Would we ever risk putting
another order with Boeing?' It's that serious.''
Despite the ups-and-downs, we hold no animus toward union
members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them
for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims. To the
contrary, union members are part of our company's fabric and
key to our success. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees
are represented by unions--a ratio unchanged since 2003.
Nor are we making a mass exodus to right-to-work states
that forbid compulsory union membership. We have a sizable
presence in 34 states; half are unionized and half are right-
to-work. We make decisions on work placement based on
business principles--not out of emotion or spite. For
example, last year we added new manufacturing facilities in
Illinois and Montana. One work force is union-represented,
the other is not. Both decisions made business sense.
The world the NLRB wants to create with its complaint would
effectively prevent all companies from placing new plants in
right-to-work states if they have existing plants in
unionized states. But as an unintended consequence, forward-
thinking CEOs also would be reluctant to place new plants in
unionized states--lest they be forever restricted from
placing future plants elsewhere across the country.
U.S. tax and regulatory policies already make it more
attractive for many companies to build new manufacturing
capacity overseas. That's something the administration has
said it wants to change and is taking steps to address. It
appears that message hasn't made it to the front offices of
the NLRB.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
quorum call time be equally divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to offer my full support for
Susan Carney of my State of Connecticut, who is the President's
nominee, now approved by the Judiciary Committee, to serve on a very
important circuit court--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
Susan Carney's legal education and long career of public service will
make her a valuable addition to the Federal bench. I thank President
Obama for his decision to nominate Ms. Carney, and I urge my colleagues
across party lines to confirm her nomination when it comes to a vote in
a short while today.
Ms. Carney, as a matter of record, was quickly reported out of the
Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan vote of 15 to 3 on February 17 of
this year. This, in fact, was the second time her nomination had been
reported out of the committee with broad bipartisan support. If
confirmed, Susan Carney will fill one of two judicial vacancies on the
second circuit--vacancies which the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts has declared to be emergency vacancies. As I have said, she has
been thoroughly vetted twice by the Judiciary Committee and earned
bipartisan support both times.
I would like to take a moment to provide some background on the
nominee's credentials. Susan Carney has a very diverse background, both
in private practice, working for the Peace Corps, and most recently
serving as the deputy general counsel at Yale University. For the past
12 years, she has served in that position. As Yale's President Richard
Levin put it:
Susan Carney has served the University with insight,
intelligence, and superb legal skills.
[[Page S3011]]
He added that she has never failed to be guided by what he referred
to as her ``firm ethical compass.''
In her capacity as general counsel, Ms. Carney was the second highest
legal officer at Yale--which is of course not just a great educational
and research institution but has an operating budget of more than $2
billion annually, more than 12,000 employees, and more than 11,000
students. So there was a lot of legal work to do there.
Ms. Carney's portfolio included a lot of complicated areas covered by
Federal law, including scientific research, intellectual property, and
health care. She also managed other legal elements of Yale's
transactions with institutions throughout this country and the world.
Ms. Carney served as a law clerk to Judge Levin Hicks Campbell on the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit before entering private
practice. She has been admitted to practice in seven courts, including
the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She is a
member of three different bars: the Massachusetts bar, the District of
Columbia bar, and the Connecticut bar, and has also served on the board
of directors of the National Association of College & University
Attorneys.
This is a superbly qualified individual with a broad background in a
host of different legal fields which she will bring to the bench. I
think most significant of all--and she obviously impressed both parties
on the Judiciary Committee--she is balanced, she is openminded, and she
will adjudicate according to what President Levin called ``her firm
ethical and moral compass.'' Therefore I hope there will be a strong
vote of support to send Susan Carney to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals where she will serve the cause of justice in America very well
indeed.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to address my
colleagues and the public on the nomination of Susan Carney, nominated
to the Second Circuit, and which we will soon vote. Today's vote marks
the 24th judicial confirmation this year and the 16th for a seat
designated as a judicial emergency. This also marks the fourth vacancy
to the Second Circuit that has been filled by an Obama nominee.
Over the past 2 weeks, nominations-related work has taken up the vast
majority of the Senate's time. In fact, after today, we will have
confirmed seven judges in just 9 days. Last week alone, we had a
cloture vote on the nominee to be Deputy Attorney General, debate and
votes on three district court nominees, and two Judiciary Committee
markups. This year, the committee has reported 51 percent of President
Obama's nominees. Yet it seems the more we work with the majority on
filling vacancies, the more complaints we hear. Furthermore, as we work
together to confirm consensus nominees, we are met with the majority's
insistence that we turn to controversial nominees. So I wish to address
some of the complaints we have heard.
I think about the American Constitution Society blog and some of my
colleagues in the Senate who say we are not moving fast enough on
President Obama's nominees. I wish to point out to them that is
intellectually dishonest. They may be ignorant about some of the
statistics that involve the nominees we have approved so far versus
what has been done in other administrations, but I wish to show that it
is an outright, flat lie that we are not processing nominees fast
enough. Given the pace of activity in our committee and on the floor,
there is no credibility to the arguments that we are not moving fast
enough.
Last week, it was stated that the Senate is well behind on President
Obama's nominations, so I would like to provide perspective on that
assertion. For comparable time periods, we have processed and confirmed
a greater percentage of President Obama's nominees. When we complete
the vote we are going to have in about 30 minutes, we will have
confirmed 33 percent of President Obama's nominees nominated this year.
That compares to only 28 percent of President Bush's nominees confirmed
in a comparable time period.
Furthermore, President Obama's nominees are moving much faster
through the committee process. President Obama's circuit court nominees
have waited only, on average, 72 days from nomination to hearing.
President Bush's had to wait, on average, 275 days during his first
term. For his entire Presidency, that average was almost 247 days.
President Obama's district court nominees are also faring better,
waiting, on average, only 70 days for their hearings. President Bush's
district court nominees had an average wait of closer to 100 days
during his first term, and an average of 120 days throughout his entire
Presidency.
These statistics, and our continued action to move on consensus
nominees, refutes the argument made by those who continue to falsely
claim there is a systematic delay and partisan obstruction of judicial
nominees by Republicans in the Senate. I hope those who continue to
make dishonest comments take note of the statistics I just gave.
Today, we are going to vote on the nomination of Susan Carney, and
this will be for a U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit. Ms.
Carney received her A.B., cum laude, from Harvard University in 1973
and her juris doctorate, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in
1977. Upon graduation from law school, she clerked for Judge Campbell
on the First Circuit and then entered private practice. After 8 years
of private practice, Ms. Carney was self-employed for the next 6 years,
engaged in contract legal work and consulting. In 1994, the nominee
returned to legal practice as a counsel to Bredhoff & Kaiser here in
Washington, DC. In 1996, she moved to the Peace Corps, where she served
as Associate General Counsel for 2 years. In 1998, she joined the
general counsel's office at Yale University, where she has been the
deputy general counsel for the past 9 years.
My concern with Ms. Carney's nomination is her lack of experience.
She has no judicial experience and has limited litigation experience.
She has never authored any scholarly legal works of note, and much of
her work product provided to the committee consists of presentations
about various legal issues faced by research universities.
Her qualifications for the court of appeals and, indeed, the reason
for the President's decision to nominate her to the Second Circuit
remains somewhat of a mystery. According to her questionnaire, Ms.
Carney appeared in court occasionally over the course of her career,
and the word ``occasionally'' is her own. She has never tried a case to
verdict, judgment, or final decision--an absence she explains by saying
that she ``spent [her] law career as an appellate lawyer and in-house
counsel.'' Her questionnaire suggests she has never argued a case in
any appellate court.
During her most recent legal job, Ms. Carney has focused largely on
contractual issues such as scientific research partnerships between
academic researchers and for-profit industry, international
partnerships involving Yale, and intellectual property ownership
issues. Her questionnaire reveals no litigation experience in the last
15 years of her career, and it is unclear how her position with Yale
University might have prepared her for the Federal judicial
appointment, much less one on the court of appeals.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary gave her the rating ``substantial majority qualified,
minority not qualified.'' Even though the reasons behind the ratings
are not released, I suspect the ``not qualified'' rating stems from her
lack of litigation experience.
This nominee does not have the concrete judicial experience I favor.
I know others share this view. The Judiciary Committee reported this
nominee by a vote of 15 to 3, with three Republicans in opposition, not
including this Senator. I take their views seriously and fully
understand why Senators would not support this nomination.
[[Page S3012]]
Nevertheless, with little enthusiasm for her nomination, I will give
her the benefit of the doubt and support the nominee.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate finally considers the
nomination of Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a judicial emergency
vacancy on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ms. Carney has
twice been considered by the Judiciary Committee and has twice been
reported with strong bipartisan support, first last year and again in
February. The majority of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee
have twice joined in supporting this nomination. I expect that she will
be confirmed with significant bipartisan support.
This is one of several judicial nominations that the minority refused
to consider, despite being favorably reported by the Judiciary
Committee last year. Hers will be the 16th nomination confirmed this
year that could and, in my view, should have been considered last year.
That is right: Of the 24 judicial nominations the Senate will have
considered and confirmed this year, including Ms. Carney, almost 70
percent were delayed from last year. We have only been able to confirm
eight judicial nominees who had hearings and were reported for the
first time this year. So when some say we are taking ``positive
action'' on large percentages of nominees, what this shows is how many
unobjectionable nominees were stalled last year by objections from the
minority.
This is only the third circuit court nomination the Senate has been
allowed to consider all year. There are several others awaiting final
Senate action. Caitlin Halligan is an outstanding nominee to the DC
Circuit. Bernice Donald of Tennessee has the support of her home State
Republican Senators, and should be confirmed promptly to the Sixth
Circuit. Henry Floyd of South Carolina has the support of his home
State Republican Senators and should not be delayed from serving on the
Fourth Circuit. The circuit nominee stalled the longest is Professor
Goodwin Liu of California. He is nominated to the Ninth Circuit and is
strongly supported by his home State Senators. He is qualified and will
make an outstanding judge. He is brilliant and understands the role of
a judge. He has been reported three times by the Senate Judiciary
Committee. The stalling on his nomination should end. The Senate should
vote and confirm Goodwin Liu.
Susan Carney, currently the deputy general counsel of Yale
University, has a career of distinguished service. After graduating
with honors from Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Ms. Carney
clerked for Judge Levin H. Campbell of the Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit. She then spent 17 years in private practice, obtaining
significant appellate litigation experience, before becoming the
associate general counsel of the Peace Corps. Ms. Carney has spent the
last 13 years in the Office of the General Counsel at Yale University,
and is now Yale's second highest ranking legal officer.
Ms. Carney's nomination has the strong support of both of her home
State Senators, Senator Lieberman and Senator Blumenthal, along with
the Federal Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut Bar Association and
the New York City Bar Association's Committee on the Judiciary. Ms.
Carney's nomination also had the strong support of Mr. Dodd, the
distinguished former Senator from Connecticut. Before he retired from
the Senate, Senator Dodd introduced Ms. Carney to the Judiciary
Committee at her nomination hearing. He said of Ms. Carney:
Throughout her career, Susan Carney has developed a
professional versatility and breadth of legal knowledge well
suited to serve on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And
perhaps even more important, I believe she has exhibited the
kind of temperament and unflinching respect for the rule of
law that are absolutely critical components, in my view, of
serving on the Federal courts.
It is no surprise that Ms. Carney's nomination has received such
strong bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee. The Senate should
have been able to debate and vote on her nomination before Senator Dodd
left the Senate. I am pleased we are finally going to vote on it today.
I am sorry that another outstanding nominee from Connecticut, Judge
Robert Chatigny, was also prevented by the minority from receiving
consideration and a vote by the Senate. After he was favorably reported
last year, Senate Republicans refused to agree to a debate and vote on
his nomination, and insisted on returning it to the President without
Senate consideration. He is a fine judge whose record was distorted in
their opposition to him. That was a shame.
I thank the majority and Republican leaders for agreeing to schedule
the vote on Ms. Carney's nomination today. The Senate's agreement to
debate and vote on long-delayed nominations like that of Ms. Carney and
of Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California last week
show that the delays that have slowed our progress on nominations are
unnecessary. With the breakthrough earlier this month when 11
Republicans joined in ending the filibuster against another long-
stalled nomination, that of Judge Jack McConnell of Rhode Island, we
have begun to make progress and, in fact, take ``positive action'' or
judicial nominations held up for months by the minority. With vacancies
still totaling almost 90 on Federal courts throughout the country, with
another dozen future vacancies on the horizon, we need to do more to
ensure that the Federal judiciary has the resources it needs to fulfill
its constitutional role.
Including Ms. Carney's nomination, there are 15 judicial nominations
on the Senate Executive Calendar, more than half of which have been
ready for final Senate action for weeks and, in some cases, many
months. I thank the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Senator
Grassley, for working with me to consider nominations in the Judiciary
Committee. We have a fair but thorough process, including reviewing
extensive background material on each nominee, and giving all Senators
on the committee, Democratic and Republican, the opportunity to ask the
nominees questions at a live hearing and following the hearing in
writing. All of these nominees which the committee reported to the
Senate have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated
faithfulness to the Constitution. All have the support of their home
State Senators, both Republican and Democratic. They should not be
delayed for weeks and months needlessly after being so thoroughly and
fairly considered by the Judiciary Committee.
Our ability to make progress regarding nominations has been hampered
by the creation of what I consider to be misplaced controversies about
many nominees' records. I hope no Senator cites one such invented
controversy as a basis for opposing Ms. Carney's nomination. In the
time that the Senate has been prevented from voting on Ms. Carney's
nomination, some on the far right have made baseless allegations about
Ms. Carney. Their false claim is that Ms. Carney engaged in a coverup
after another Yale administrator had erroneously confirmed to a Korean
institution that a prospective hire earned a Ph.D. from Yale. In fact,
the opposite is true. It was Ms. Carney who informed the Korean
institution that Yale had erred. I hope no Senator is taken in by this
smear campaign against a good nominee.
Concerns that Ms. Carney lacks sufficient experience to be an
appellate judge are also misplaced. She has been a lawyer for 30 years
and has a wealth of experience, including, as I mentioned, 17 years in
private practice with experience in appellate litigation. I have,
nonetheless, heard this purported concern raised by the handful of
Republican Senators who oppose Ms. Carney's confirmation. I believe
that Ms. Carney's wide range of experience as a lawyer in private
practice and as deputy general counsel of one of the world's leading
educational and research institutions--one with an annual budget that
exceeds $2 billion--have prepared her well to serve on the Second
Circuit. Along with Connecticut and New York, it is Vermont that is
served by the circuit court to which Ms. Carney has been nominated.
[[Page S3013]]
All Senators from States within the Second Circuit support her
confirmation. I also note that I did not hear Republican Senators raise
any concerns about lack of judicial experience when President Bush
nominated, and the Senate confirmed, 24 nominees to circuit courts with
no prior judicial experience, and a number with little trial litigation
experience.
Even as some Republicans have opposed this nominee by saying that she
does not have sufficient litigation experience, Republican Senators
have recently tried to twist nominees' litigation experience against
them. Their partisan attacks are not consistent. When a nominee has
extensive experience and is a successful trial lawyer, they complain
that the nominee has too much experience and will be biased by it.
Republicans opposed Judge McConnell of Rhode Island because he was an
excellent trial lawyer. They opposed Judge Chen of California despite
his 10 years as a fair and impartial Federal judge magistrate and
disregarded his judicial record. The Republican opposition to President
Obama's judicial nominees has been anything but consistent. Now some
will turn around and oppose Ms. Carney, a nominee with more than 30
years of legal experience, by saying she has not had sufficient
experience as a trial advocate.
This reminds me of the story of the mother who sent her son two
neckties as gifts. When she visited, the son picked her up at the
airport dutifully wearing one of the ties, only to hear his mother
complain: ``What's the matter? Don't you like the other tie?''
Let us turn away from such double standards and return to the
longstanding Senate practice of judging nominees on their merits, not
based on caricatures. Our ability to finally reach a time agreement and
have a vote on the nomination of Susan Carney is a welcome sign of
progress. We still have a long way to go to do as well as we did during
President Bush's first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial
nominations. We confirmed 100 of those judicial nominations during the
17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in
office. So far, well into President Obama's third year in office, the
Senate has only been allowed to consider 84 of President Obama's
Federal circuit and district court nominees, well short of 205. We need
to work together to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the judges it
needs to provide justice to Americans in courts throughout the country.
I congratulate Ms. Carney and her family on her confirmation today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum,
and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Susan L. Carney, of Connecticut, to be
U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit?
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S3013, May 17, 2011, the Record reads: . . . Susan L.
Carney, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . Susan L.
Carney, of Connecticut, to be U.S. Circuit Judge . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 71 Ex.]
YEAS--71
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--28
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Sanders
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is laid upon the table and the President will be immediately
notified of the Senate's action.
____________________